EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pushed by Voters, Senators to Debate US Role in Libya
WASHINGTON - Responding to growing concern among war-weary constituents about the purpose and cost of the U.S. mission in Libya, senators are poised to debate whether to send President Barack Obama a message that he needs to be more specific about his goals there.
Corker and Webb, right, are working on an alternative proposal Kerry and McCain's. (Photo AP) Obama defended his policy Tuesday during a joint press conference in Washington with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"Chancellor Merkel and I share the belief that (Libyan leader Moammar) Gadhafi needs to step down for the sake of his own people," Obama said.
"And with respect to the pace of the operations and participation, I think if you look at where we were three months ago and where we are now . . . or two months ago, and where we are now, the progress that has been made in Libya is significant."
But on Capitol Hill, senators returning from a 10-day Memorial Day recess reported that their constituents want Congress to examine more closely the U.S. involvement in Libya, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq.
The House of Representatives last week approved a measure requiring Obama to report back to Congress on Libya by later this month. In another vote last month, it turned back by a 215 to 204 margin a bid to expedite U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Libya is the immediate Senate concern, and Thursday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to discuss legislation that will test Obama's Senate support.
The president made it clear Tuesday that he's not backing down in his effort to oust Gadhafi.
"The chancellor (Merkel) and I have been clear: Gadhafi must step down and hand power to the Libyan people. And the pressure will only continue to increase until he does," Obama said.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are pushing a measure that would express Senate support for the U.S. military mission in Libya. Obama said in a letter last month to congressional leaders that he backed such a resolution.
A full debate is expected next week.
"We're going to have lots of opportunities to vote on different things on how people feel about Libya," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I'll be happy to look at every different idea people have."
There appear to be two major concerns among senators, one involving the extent of the mission, the other involving its cost.
"My concern is that the president didn't address major questions from the onset, like what's the endgame, or what is our exit strategy? I have yet to see any evidence of those questions answered," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a Republican moderate who's up for re-election next year.
"I think it's fair to say, there are a lot of different points of view," added Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. "There's been a lack of clarity on missions and objectives."
Obama supporters also want a debate.
"My strong inclination is to support what the president has done. However, a debate on the floor would add value and understanding," said Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires Obama to consult Congress before acting. He informed Congress of his Libya decision March 18, the day before the mission began. Under the resolution, Congress must approve any military action within 60 to 90 days, or it's canceled; the 60th day came and went last month, but the mission goes on.
The Senate's consideration of Libya policy comes after the House rejected a bid by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, to call for a U.S. pullout from NATO's Libyan operation within 15 days of passage.
The House instead adopted a weaker measure, introduced by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that gives Obama 14 days to justify his Libya decision.
Boehner's resolution scolded Obama but didn't tie the president's hands. It warned the administration that Congress "has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya."
The cost of war, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan, has evolved as a major constituent concern.
The wars "are a big part of the spending equation," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.
Lawmakers are desperately searching for ways to cut the federal budget, and defense spending is very much in play.
A Pew Research Center nationwide survey conducted May 25-30 found that 60 percent said the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed a "great deal" to the nation's debt.
(Lydia Mulvany, Halimah Abdullah and Jarondakie Patrick contributed to this article.)
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

7 Comments so far
Show AllWell, hallelujah!! Our so-call representatives are going to question Barry's fiat to start a third war in the Middle East. How about the next obvious question: When are they going to do something about the life-taking, treasury-busting other quagmires called Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else (that we don't even know about)?
What a bunch of clowns in Congress. So they're going to ask Obama to be more specific about his goals in Libya? Flash: he has no legitimate goals, and he'll never admit to regime change. What we have is a charade, political theater. Under pressure from their constituents, the senate will go through the motions of a debate, but the conclusion is foretold--there will be no change in policy. Democracy American-style is mind-numbing and farcical.
Why has the War Powers never been implemented? Since the inception of the War Powers Act we have had American armed forces engaged in known military actions in Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan. Our armed forces have also been engaged in covert military operations around the globe continuously since the inception of the War Powers Act. Just as the over reach of the Roman Empire contributed to it's decline, over reach of the American Empire is ultimately going to lead to the decline of this nation..
I hope I am wrong, but I believe nothing at all will come out of this. Look at the players - from the mealy mouth who will bore you to death, to the "war hero" to the nothingburgers who cudda, wudda, shudda for 10 years on Afghanistan and have stood by and let numerous other pointless invasions begin.
It is a good sign only in that these esteemed gentlemen have been forced into theatrics by public consciousness. Don't fall for the sop. This is no time for us to stop talking with the public about the costs of our invasions and the total lack of benefits except for the war contractors.
I do not know how this will end, but public consciousness and action have to be the beginning, not the bought off phonies in Congress.
>>The chancellor (Merkel) and I have been clear: Gadhafi must step down and hand power to the Libyan people. And the pressure will only continue to increase until he does," Obama said.
This IS terrorism. Either Gadhafi leaves or the US and its allies will keep killing Libyans.
Again for the misguided that continue to think the USA a force for good or that the Allies inside NATO are somehow on the side of all that is just.
These are by any definition acts of terrorism. Indeed these alleged "Terrorist" groups in the Middle East and Afghanistan have more in the way of Justice on their side when alleged spokespersons for them claim they will bomb trains in the USA unless the USA pulls its forces out of those countries.
I would also submit that we all KNOW the Government of the United States of America is making these threats and dropping bombs on people the world over while the threats to do the same in reverse by these "Terrorist groups" come to us filtered by the Western Media and its intelligence agencies.
So as example. One "Islamist Terrorist" they cit is a person who is in fact Jewish and an American Citizen.
It is all out there in the open for anyone to see even as it filtered and shaped for a western audience. Is it any wonder an Iran can call the USA "The Great Satan" when Satan is also referred to as "The Prince of Lies"?
I have one other comment to make as an aside. I am not sure who it was but someone was once suggesting that if Chavez wanted to be taken seriously and not seen as a thug he should stop dressing up like some "Third world thug" in his berets and clothes of the people.
We have the 4 Senators on the side dressed in suit and ties.
Who of these are the greatest thugs? Who has more blood on their hands? Who is in fact the greatest tin pot dictator lining their own pockets and those of their cronies with gold as the people go poor?
I get tired of the suit and tie crowd.
Photius, my feeling, too.
We live under a regime of taxation without representation, bent on self-destruction.
The military-industrial complex (the worldwide net of US garrisons and its never ending bellicose activities) is eating away at our nation and will bring it to its knees. They call that 'victory'.
"There appear to be two major concerns among senators, one involving the extent of the mission, the other involving its cost."
the questions of legality and/or morality are obviously of no concern.